You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

therefore I trust that a journal article from 2008 free of retractions is scientifically sound as there are rigorous review processes required to publish in peer reviewed scientific journals but any dodo can make claims on an internet website..

:rolli:

The professor who authored that critique has also published in peer-reviewed journals, ones which are directly related to the field, as any cursory examination would reveal:

If you had actually read the critique, you would have noticed that it criticizes the study on the basis that it is misleading and demonstrates only a spurious association in a small and non-representative sample that fails to control for something as simple and obvious as criminal records-which, by the way, the majority of shooting victims posses, a fact that no new information in that study contradicts. Another control variable that is unaccounted for is whether crime victims actually tried to defend themselves with their fire-arms, a variable which could then be compared to crime victims without fire-arms.

In short, that study is useless, containing no information that was not already widely known and indicating only that people with guns are more likely to be involved in dangerous situations-hardly surprising if someone is motivated to buy a gun for self-defense or for criminal purposes.

I can't believe only one of you I skimmed across understands why we have a 2nd amendment. It doesn't exist because you can defend yourself from a violent armed robbery, its just a side perk. The real reason we have the right to bare arms is because of the nature of the United States government. The US government serves the people. The people don't serve the government. Government does watch over us, but even the watchers need a watcher. Which is the people they are supposed to serve watch over them as well. Neither the government or the people go unchecked.

This is why the case of the North Carolina congressman being rude to that student is despicable. That man is a civil servant, he works for that student. No business that wants to be in business treats their clients like shit, and the government shouldn't be exempt from this practice. People in government are held to a lot higher standards of moral character, its the nature of their work.

Enough of that issue. Anyhow, the people are supposed to watch over the government. Why should we be able to have assault rifles? So if some Fascist/Marxist/Anything extreme takes over we are armed well enough to overthrow it. It doesn't matter what studies say about gun violence. What matters is that the watchers of the government can keep the government from going too far.

Originally Posted by ShadowOfTheNight

The best argument for supporting private firearm ownership:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

-Thomas Jefferson

But yeah, gun control arguments on the internet never go anywhere and usually degenerate into pointless bickering.

Right on the spot. I usually sit out on political debates for this reason. I'll try and suck in information and viewpoints, but I try not too comment. Skimming around I didn't see enough views like this, maybe I missed them, so I felt I should throw mine in. Don't be surprised if I don't respond to posts. I'm very prone to not caring about debates or changing my opinion overnight.

If you had actually read the critique, you would have noticed that it criticizes the study on the basis that it is misleading and demonstrates only a spurious association in a small and non-representative sample that fails to control for something as simple and obvious as criminal records-which, by the way, the majority of shooting victims posses, a fact that no new information in that study contradicts. Another control variable that is unaccounted for is whether crime victims actually tried to defend themselves with their fire-arms, a variable which could then be compared to crime victims without fire-arms.

In short, that study is useless, containing no information that was not already widely known and indicating only that people with guns are more likely to be involved in dangerous situations-hardly surprising if someone is motivated to buy a gun for self-defense or for criminal purposes.

Clearly what I'm saying is not making sense to you...
I read the critique and I disagree with him as clearly the reviewers of the article do as well since they have not retracted the journal yet...

This guy is a professor thus he should know that if he has a problem with the science in someone's article it is really easy to just request a retraction. When we find errors in someone's science in my lab that is exactly what we do... So, again I have to ask, I wonder why he hasn't.... strange...

I read the article - I know who the guy is and I'm not impressed.. he's just a professor that for some reason would rather rant on internet websites in lieu of actually following the appropriate channels to request a retraction of an article with what he views as sub par science... another possibility is he already attempted that and a panel of reviewers disagreed with him and thus dismissed his claims that the science in the article is flawed... and now he is having a temper tantrum via a lobbyist website on the internet...

You'll have to excuse my reservations about a "scientist" that behaves that way - but since I actually am a scientist as well I personally find that behavior odd as I have never seen anyone resort to personal attacks on internet websites rather than simply reporting the bad science via the appropriate channels and getting a retraction of the offending article...

so again.. clearly we disagree on what is an is not reputable research etc..

Originally Posted by whatever

watch where you're driving f$cktards! I have the right of way!!! :steam:

chicago has had a gun ban (we can't even conceal and carry legally) for the past 20 or so years it did not help with the murder rate if anything it made the murder rate go up, because we have a bunch of gangs in this city and yes most of the crime happens on the southside, but still this is why i don't agree with it. We can't even have a conceal and carry. this is a city that when they ban something people find ways to get it in. take spray paint for example, that's been banned yet their's still new graffiti everyday. it's not an argument of whether or not guns are bad, it's a matter of protection.say what you want, and I will never own a gun, provided i never have to live in an unsafe neighborhood. I just think it's the individual's right it's in our constitution. I just think this law is going to put guns into the wrong hands. its not like we ahve an ocean dividing us from other states.